Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality. Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (h 2 RA) provided similar gastroprotection.
Original Description:
Original Title
nsaid anti inflammatory drugs gastroprotection.pdf
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality. Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (h 2 RA) provided similar gastroprotection.
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality. Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (h 2 RA) provided similar gastroprotection.
Gastroprotection, and BenetRisk Robert Andrew Moore, DSc*; Sheena Derry, MA*; Lee S. Simon, MD
; Paul Emery, MD
*Pain Research and Nufeld Division of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.;
SDG LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts U.S.A.;
Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, U.K. & Abstract Background: Gastroprotective agents (GPA) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality with long-term nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin. Objective: To evaluate efcacy of NSAIDs, protection against NSAID-induced gastrointestinal harm, and balance of benet and risk. Methods: Free text searches of PubMed (December 2012) supplemented with related citation and cited by facili- ties on PubMed and Google Scholar for patient requirements, NSAID effectiveness, pain relief benets, gastroprotective strategies, adherence to gastroprotection prescribing, and serious harm with NSAIDs and GPA. Results: Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Meta-analyses of NSAID trials in musculoskeletal conditions had bimodal responses with good pain relief or little. Number needed to treat (NNTs) for good pain relief were 3 to 9. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antago- nists (H 2 RA) provided similar gastroprotection, with no conclusive evidence of greater PPI efcacy compared with high-dose H 2 RA. Prescriber adherence to guidance on use of GPA with NSAIDS was 49% in studies published since 2005; patient adherence was less than 100%. PPI use at higher doses over longer periods is associated with increased risk of serious adverse events, including fracture; no such evidence was found for H 2 RA. Patients with chronic conditions are more willing to accept risk of harm for successful treatment than their physicians. Conclusion: Guidance on NSAIDs use should ensure that patients have a good level of pain relief and that gastropro- tection is guaranteed for the NSAID delivering good pain relief. Fixed-dose combinations of NSAID plus GPA offer one solution. & Key Words: pain, joint pain, nonsteroidal anti-inamma- tory drugs, NSAID, gastroprotection, riskbenet analysis, systematic review Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Robert Andrew Moore, DSc, Pain Research and Nufeld Division of Anaesthetics, Nufeld Department of Clinical Neurology, University of Oxford, The Churchill, Oxford OX3 7LE, U.K. E-mail: andrew.moore@ndcn.ox.ac.uk. Disclosures: Horizon Pharma provided funding for this study but had no inuence on its content; the company did have the right to see the nished manuscript before publication, but not to enforce changes or prevent publication. Andrew Moore, Lee Simon, and Paul Emery have had specied relationships with Horizon and have received nancial reim- bursement. Andrew Moore is an owner of Oxford Medical Knowledge, who was paid for the work on this study. Lee Simon and Paul Emery were paid consultants to Horizon Inc. RAM has provided expert advice for Menarinin, Pzer, and MSD. PE has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice for Pzer, MSD, Abbvie, UCB, BMS, Roche, Novartis. Sheena Derry has no disclosures. Submitted: April 30, 2013; Revision accepted: June 03, 2013 DOI. 10.1111/papr.12100 2013 The Authors Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of World Institute of Pain, 1530-7085/14/$15.00 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. Pain Practice, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2014 378395 INTRODUCTION Pain is one of the leading factors contributing to the global burden of disease as measured by years lived with disability. 1 Among the top 11 disorders contributing the greatest burden include low back pain, neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders, migraine, and osteoarthritis. These patients want very considerable reductions in their pain, 2 and nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs) represent one major class of analgesic drugs used in these conditions. There is a well-understood spectrum of gastrointes- tinal harm associated with use of NSAIDs, including gastrointestinal symptoms, increased incidence of endo- scopic ulcers, bleeding, and death. 3,4 A number of different upper and lower gastrointestinal outcomes are now recognized together as clinically signicant upper and lower GI events (CSULGIEs); incidence rates can vary between NSAIDs, and the background rate without NSAID in clinical trials is about 0.3%. 5 A history of prior gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding, the pres- ence of other risk factors like advancing age, higher doses of NSAID, and probably duration of NSAID use all increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. 6 Individual NSAIDs come with different innate risks, most likely related to the half-life of the drug. Table 1 used information from 2 systematic reviews with different time periods 6,7 and some selected recent case control studies that give results by individual drugs. 810 We have evidenced that the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding events with ibuprofen at doses up to 2,400 mg is equivalent to that for diclofenac at doses up to 100 mg daily. For naproxen doses up to 1,000 mg and piroxicam at doses up to 20 mg daily, risks are higher. There is a signicant increased risk of GI bleeding with use of NSAIDs, against a background that is not insignicant (even within the context of randomized trials, which frequently exclude patients at higher risk), where the annual rate of complicated upper gastroin- testinal events with NSAIDs can be around 1%. 11,12 There is an appreciable mortality. 3,13 Extensive use of gastroprotective agents (GPA) can substantially reduce the morbidity and mortality asso- ciated with long-term NSAID and aspirin use. 14 In the U.K., the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on osteoarthritis suggests coprescription with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in every patient, irrespective of risk and whether the patient is prescribed an NSAID or a coxib. 15 Other guidance consistently advises the use of GPA with NSAIDs when there is any gastrointestinal risk factor, such as older age. Recent cohort studies in France and Japan demonstrate very signicant population-based reductions in upper gastrointestinal bleeding through extensive and appropriate prescribing of PPI. 16,17 This article brings together evidence about a number of different aspects of NSAIDs and protection against gastrointestinal harm induced by NSAIDs, and exam- ines the balance of benets and risks for their use. The manuscript will be informed by evidence compiled from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, paying particular regard to contemporary standards of evidence. The main areas of interest for the review include evidence about the treatment outcome desired by patients with chronic pain, results obtained with NSA- Table 1. Meta-Analyses and Studies Indicating Increased Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding Study (number of participants) Details Relative Risk or Odds Ratio Ibuprofen 2,400 mg Diclofenac 100 mg Naproxen 1,000 mg Piroxicam 20 mg Current NSAID use Hernandez-Diaz and Rodrguez 6 ( 80,000) Overview of epidemiology studies in 1990s 2.1 (1.6 to 2.7) 3.1 (2.0 to 4.7) 3.5 (2.8 to 4.3) 5.6 (4.7 to 6.7) 4.2 (3.9 to 4.6) Lewis et al., 2004 (N = 8,349) 8 Individual patient meta-analysis of 3 retrospective casecontrol studies 1.8 (0.8 to 3.7) 3.2 (1.9 to 5.8) 5.4 (2.9 to 9.9) 12 (6.5 to 22) 5.6 (4.6 to 7.0) Lanas et al. 9 (N = 8,309) Casecontrol study of national health system in Spain 4.1 (3.1 to 5.3) 3.1 (2.3 to 4.2) 7.3 (4.7 to 11) 13 (7.8 to 20) 7.3 (4.0 to 13) Garcia-Rodriguez and Barreales Tolosa 10 (N = 11,561) Casecontrol study using U.K. database 2.0 (1.4 to 2.9) 3.7 (3.0 to 4.3) 8.1 (4.7 to 12) Not given 2.6 (1.9 to 3.6) Masso Gonzalez et al., 2010 7 ( 40,000) Systematic review of epidemiological studies 2000 to 2008 2.7 (2.4 to 3.0) 4.0 (3.5 to 4.4) 5.2 (4.3 to 6.2) 9.3 (7.5 to 11) 4.6 (4.3 to 4.9) NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs. NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 379 IDs based on these expected outcomes, collateral ben- ets obtained, efcacy of PPI and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H 2 RA) gastroprotection, how well doctors and patients adhere to gastroprotection guidelines and therapy, other risks or rare but serious harm with NSAIDs and GPAs, and patient attitudes toward risk and benet in chronic conditions. METHODS We used several methodological techniques to maximize the relevance of the review. These involved systematic searching in a number of different areas, including using data from existing reviews of randomized double-blind trials for evidence of NSAID and gastroprotection efcacy, and broad acceptance of other study designs where appropriate. We followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- analysis) statement guidelines where this guidance applied 18 and high standards for evidence for NSAID efcacy. 19,20 Literature Search Searching for relevant studies was conducted with several different themes, namely for patient-level requirements for outcomes in chronic pain, individual patient data analysis of NSAID effectiveness in chronic pain conditions, benets of pain relief, gastroprotective strategies used with NSAIDs, doctor and patient adher- ence to gastroprotection prescribing and use, and for rare, but serious adverse events associated with NSAIDs and GPA. These searches comprised different free text searches of PubMed (to December 2012), with follow- up on any potentially useful publication using the related citation and cited by facilities on PubMed. For those articles deemed useful, we also checked on citations of that publication using Google Scholar. In addition to electronic searches, retrieved articles were read for any other sources of data, as were general reviewarticles and book chapters. Observational studies can be poorly elicited by electronic searching, 21,22 and our experience 22,23 is that this strategy captures a very high proportion of high quality, large studies. Study Selection Publication in 1995 or later was required to accurately reect evidence relevant to pain management in 2013. Where possible, extant systematic reviews and meta-analyses were sought, updated with any more recent information where available. Any study architec- ture was permitted, as appropriate for the subject. For example, when examining the effect of pain treatment on quality of life, the only architectures deemed appro- priate were individual patient analysis of randomized trials or large comprehensive cohort studies with clear denition of inclusion criteria. For effect of NSAIDs or GPA, only data from randomized trials were deemed appropriate. A single reviewer (RAM) was responsible for initial study selection and for data extraction, but other authors checked decisions over inclusion and accuracy of data extraction. Quality Assessment The assessment of quality in observational studies is not straightforward, and no ideal universal quality scoring system exists. 24 We used study size in judging results because small size is associated with a large potential for random chance effects, whatever the study architec- ture. 24 We chose to concentrate on those aspects most likely to provide unbiased studies. For comparative trials, we used only randomized, double-blind trials and had a description of withdrawals and dropouts, scoring at least 3/5 on the Oxford Quality Scale. 25 Data Analysis and Presentation For NSAID effectiveness, we used responders dened as patients demonstrating a 50% reduction in pain inten- sity, as this has become a validated outcome important to patients. 19 However, no worse than mild pain may be a better outcome. In this denition, withdrawal from treatment for any reason is regarded as nonresponse and equivalent to baseline observation carried forward (BOCF), as imputation with the baseline level of pain intensity would exclude achievement of any of these levels of response. Responders were considered true responders if they experienced benet and continued taking the drug. Imputation using last observation carried forward (LOCF), which the last nonmissing observation is carried forward from the time of with- drawal to the end of the trial, was not used because it has shown to introduce signicant bias in some circum- stances. 20 Analysis of the effects of PPI and H 2 RA in reducing NSAID-induced endoscopic ulcers used endoscopic 380 MOORE ET AL. outcomes ideally measured at 12 weeks or later to capture appropriate benecial effects of long-term therapy; studies or data before 6 weeks of NSAID and GPA treatment were not included. Any dose of any PPI was allowed, as long as it was equivalent to at least 20 mg omeprazole daily. For H 2 RAs, only high doses were allowed in the analysis, equivalent to 80 mg of famotidine or 600 mg ranitidine daily. When pooling data, clinical homogeneity was exam- ined graphically. 26 Relative benet (or risk) and number needed to treat to prevent one endoscopic ulcer (NNTp) were calculated with 95% condence intervals. Relative benet or risk was calculated using a xed effects model, 27 with no statistically signicant difference between treatments assumed when the 95% condence intervals included unity. We added 0.5 to treatment and comparator arms of trials in which at least one arm had no events. Number needed to treat (or harm) was calculated by the method of Cook and Sackett, 28 using the pooled number of observations only when there was a statistically signicant difference of relative benet or risk (where the condence interval did not include 1). Signicance of differences between NNTs was calcu- lated using the statistical z-test. 29 RESULTS Patient Desired Outcomes in Chronic Pain A systematic review of studies on patient expectations indicates that large reductions in pain intensity, or being in a low pain state (no worse than mild pain), are consistently regarded as what chronic pain patients desire from treatment. 30 The ideal of being good rather than just better has been suggested previously in rheumatology. 31 Long-term reduction in pain inten- sity by 50% or more, together with concomitant reduction in fatigue, distress, and the loss of quality of life that accompanies chronic pain, is what patients want from treatment. 3235 Patients agree that a clinically important difference in pain outcomes would be at least a 33% level suggested in breakthrough pain, 36 or more than 40/ 100 mm (4/10 cm) reduction in pain, dened as much better in musculoskeletal pain. 37 In bromyalgia, pain severity reductions of about 40% were regarded as clinically important. 38 For painful diabetic neuropathy and bromyalgia, patients describing themselves as much or very much better typically had pain intensity reductions of 40% or more. 39 These are far greater than the minimally important difference of a 6% reduction in pain, suggested by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. 40 The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is dened as the value beyond where patients consider themselves well. For osteoarthritis, the junction between satisfactory and unsatisfactory was about 32/100 mm (3.2/10 cm). 41 Similar results were obtained with numerical rating and function scales. 42 In chronic pain, we dene response as having both a large reduction in pain intensity of at least 50% (some- times at least 30%) from baseline and either freedom from adverse events orat worstadverse events that are tolerable, allowing the patient to continue with therapy. 19,20 The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) group has dened 30% and 50% decrease in pain intensity, respectively, as moderately important and substantial improvements, 43 although more complex responder denitions have also been sought. 44 When asked to rate how they imagine chronic pain might affect quality of life, members of the public without pain indicated that they considered pain scores greater or equal to 4 or 5 of 10 would have increasingly large detrimental effects. 45 The consistent message from the literature is that a large reduction in pain intensity is an important and desired outcome for patients. Responder Analyses with NSAIDs Several meta-analyses of individual patient data from several randomized trials have provided information on responder analyses with NSAIDs and cyclooxygenase-2 specic inhibitors (coxibs) in chronic pain conditions of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, 46 hand, 47 chronic low back pain, 48 ankylosing spondylitis, 49 or antiepileptics in bromyalgia. 50 These responder analyses provide 2 important insights: 1. Some people in trials get very large pain intensity benets while others do not. Typically, there is no Gaussian frequency distribution of benet. Fig- ure 1 shows bimodal distributions of response in postoperative pain, 51 osteoarthritis, 46 chronic low back pain, 48 and ankylosing spondylitis. 49 This bimodal distribution is found in almost all acute and chronic pain conditions. 2. As a consequence of the bimodal distribution, only a few patients achieve a high level of response with any particular therapy. The drugs- specic (active minus placebo) proportion of NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 381 patients achieving at least 50% pain intensity reduction with NSAIDs varies from about 30% in ankylosing spondylitis, 20%in osteoarthritis with NSAIDs, to 10% in chronic low back pain and bromyalgia. 50 Table 2 shows that because most treatment-specic responses are low, numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for effective treatment of chronic pain conditions with NSAIDs are in the range of about 3 to 9. Few are better; the exception may be NSAIDs in ankylosing spondylitis where the NNT is about 3 for at least 50%pain intensity reduction. 49 There is a consistent bimodal pattern of response with NSAIDs in chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Some patients have very good pain relief with NSAIDs. The pattern that some patients respond to drug therapy, while others donot, is broadlyrecognizedinpainandelsewhere. 52 Pain Relief and Other Benets Information was obtained from a comprehensive review of a series of linked systematic reviews examining chronic pain prevalence, impact, cost, and the benets of successful treatment. 53 Information examining the benecial effects of successful treatment derived from13 studies with 7,586 patients with conditions including migraine, bromyalgia, neuropathic pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic low back pain, and anky- losing spondylitis. There was a consistent link between good pain relief and some aspect of well-being, includ- ing activities of daily living or enjoyment of life, <15% 15-29% 30-49% 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent with outcome Etoricoxib 120 mg Placebo <15% 15-29% 30-49% 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent with outcome Naproxen 1000 mg Placebo <15% 15-29% 30-49% 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent with outcome Etoricoxib 60 mg Placebo Postoperative pain Osteoarthritis pain Chronic low back pain Ankylosing spondylitis <15% 15-29% 30-49% 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent with outcome Naproxen 1000 mg Placebo Figure 1. Bimodal distribution of pain intensity reduction (Y-axis) of patients in acute postoperative pain, or chronic musculoskeletal pain, with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drug or coxib. 382 MOORE ET AL. improved mood, sleep, functioning, quality of life, work, and less fatigue. All of the studies reported some link between pain relief and aspects of improved functioning or quality of life. The magnitude of the improvements reported is not trivial and is perhaps best explained using the quality- adjusted life year (QALY), which has a scale from 1 (perfect health for 1 year) to 0 (death). Health status increases over 1 year were 0.22 with successful tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor in rheumatoid arthri- tis, 54 0.35 for 50% pain intensity reduction in painful diabetic neuropathy, 55 and 0.11 for the same outcome in bromyalgia. 56 In tapentadol trials in osteoarthritis or chronic low back pain, patients tolerating treatment with tapentadol or oxycodone and completing the trial were likely those with good pain benet with increments of 0.31. 57 In hand osteoarthritis, there was a strong association between reduced pain and improved func- tion. 58 In comparison, a systematic review of quality- adjusted life years for estimating effectiveness of health care reported utility gains from healthcare interventions over 0.51.0 year. 58 Of 31 examples, only 9 (29%) had 1-year gains above 0.1, while 22 (71%) had gains well below 0.1. This makes the quality of life gains obtained with successful treatment of chronic pain very impor- tant, placing them among the highest in medicine. There is consistent evidence across chronic pain that patients achieving good levels of pain relief, or achieving low pain states, have major improvements in quality of life. Once it has been appropriately decided to signi- cantly intervene and treat pain, choosing which inter- vention to employ becomes the issue. When using the most common chosen therapy, some formof NSAID, we must consider the inherent risks of using these drugs for their provided benet. One of the major risks of these drugs, whether they are considered selective or nonse- lective cyclooxygenase inhibitors, is related to adverse gastrointestinal events of gastroduodenal ulcer forma- tion, bleeding, perforation, obstruction, and death. Although large amounts of data have been accumulated to dene the hypertension risk, cardiovascular risks, renal, and other myriad risks associated with chronic NSAID use, the more common problem has been consequent GI damage. Thus, assessing the GI risk of the patient to be treated along with gastroprotective strategies to mitigate it is an important part of the clinical decision process. Gastroprotective Strategies with PPI and High-Dose H 2 A As a starting point, we took a Cochrane review, 14 a U.K. analysis from NICE, 59 and supplemented using an electronic literature search for additional randomized trials and then re-analyzed outcome data. PPI. Seven trials in 6 reports compared PPI + NSAID with placebo + NSAID. 6065 These trials lasted between 12 and 26 weeks, recruited 2,176 patients, of whom between 6% and 100% had a prior history of ulcer; naproxen was the most commonly used NSAID (Table 3). Two additional trials reported in 2010 65 added 860 patients to the total, so that 40% of the data analyzed were additional to the Cochrane review. 14 Table 2. Results from Meta-Analyses of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inammatory Drugs in Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions using Contemporary Evidence Standards and an Outcome Equivalent to at Least 50% Pain Intensity Reduction Drug & Dose (mg) Number of Percent with Outcome Number Needed to Treat (NNT) (95% CI) Trials Patients Active Placebo Osteoarthritis12 weeks of treatment Etoricoxib 60 3 711 44 23 4.7 (3.3 to 8.1) Naproxen 1000 2 545 44 23 4.8 (3.3 to 8.5) Etoricoxib 30 2 643 45 27 5.5 (3.9 to 9.3) Celecoxib 200 2 722 39 22 5.8 (4.2 to 9.5) Ibuprofen 2400 2 628 39 27 8.4 (5.1 to 24) Ankylosing spondylitis6 weeks of treatment Etoricoxib 120 2 185 55 15 2.5 (1.9 to 3.5) Etoricoxib 90 2 196 55 15 2.5 (1.9 to 3.5) Naproxen 1000 2 195 42 15 3.7 (2.5 to 6.6) Chronic low back pain12 weeks of treatment Etoricoxib 60 2 424 47 35 8.1 (4.6 to 33) Etoricoxib 90 2 427 47 35 8.3 (4.7 to 33) Outcome of 50% pain intensity reduction (PIR) at 12 weeks, or 50% reduction in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) at 6 weeks, and with withdrawal for any reason taken as non response NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 383 Various PPIs were used, including omeprazole, pantop- razole, lansoprazole, and esomeprazole. Most trials provided results for both gastric and duodenal ulcers, although 1 63 provided results only for gastric ulcers, which are more common than duodenal ulcers associ- ated with NSAID use. The total number of upper GI endoscopic ulcers was also reported except in two studies; 63,65 for the latter, the total was assumed to be the sum of gastric and duodenal ulcers, as the ve studies reporting gastric, duodenal, and total upper GI ulcers had totals that were the sum of gastric and duodenal. With NSAID + placebo, the incidence of upper GI ulcers ranged between 15% and 50% (Figure 2). PPI signicantly reduced the incidence of endoscopic ulcers, however, described (Table 4). Using the outcome of all upper GI endoscopic ulcers, there was a 65% reduction in incidence across trials from 32% to 11%. For PPI vs. placebo, the overall NNTp for total upper GI endo- scopic ulcers was about 5, with an NNTp of about 7 for gastric ulcers and 16 for duodenal ulcers (Table 4). High-dose H 2 RA. Five trials in 4 reports compared high-dose H 2 RA + NSAID with placebo + NSAID. 6669 These trials lasted between 12 and 52 weeks and recruited 1,680 patients, of whom between 6% and 100% had a prior history of ulcer; ibuprofen was the most commonly used NSAID (Table 3). Two additional Table 3. Summary of Randomized Trials Evaluating Efcacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) and H 2 RA for Protection Against Endoscopic Ulcers with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) Reference Patients (N) Previous Ulcers (%) Duration (weeks) NSAID GPA (daily dose mg) PPI Bianchi Porro et al. 60 95 15 12 Diclofenac, ketoprofen, indomethacin Pantoprazole 40 Cullen et al. 61 168 24 26 Naproxen Omeprazole 20 Ekstrom et al. 62 177 24 12 Naproxen Omeprazole 20 Graham et al. 63 403 100 12 Ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, aspirin, piroxicam Lansoprazole 15 or 30 Hawkey et al. 64 429 30 26 Diclofenac, ketoprofen, naproxen Omeprazole 20 Goldstein et al. 65 PN400-301 434 6 26 Naproxen Esomeprazole 40 Goldstein et al. 65 PN400-302 420 10 26 Naproxen Esomeprazole 40 High-dose H 2 A Hudson et al. 66 78 29 24 Diclofenac Famotidine 80 Taha et al. 67 190 12 24 Diclofenac, naproxen, indomethacin, ketoprofen, ibuprofen, fenbufen Famotidine 80 Ten Wolde et al. 68 30 100 52 Diclofenac Ranitidine 600 Laine et al. 69 REDUCE-1 812 7 24 Ibuprofen Famotidine 80 Laine et al. 69 REDUCE-2 570 6 24 Ibuprofen Famotidine 80 GPA, gastroprotective agents. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Upper GI ulcers with high-dose H2A (%) Upper GI ulcers with placebo (%) 0 500 1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Upper GI ulcers with PPI (%) Upper GI ulcers with placebo (%) 0 500 1000 Figure 2. Plot of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ulcer rates with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drug (NSAID) + gastroprotective agents (GPA) vs. NSAID + placebo. Size of symbol is proportional to size of study (inset scale). 384 MOORE ET AL. trials reported in 2010 69 added 1,382 patients to the total, so that 82% of the data analyzed were additional to the Cochrane review. 14 H 2 RAs used were famotidine in four trials, and ranitidine in one. All provided results for both gastric and duodenal ulcers, as well as total number of upper GI endoscopic ulcers. One additional trial published in Russian had only a 4-week duration, but an English summary reported a 50% reduction in endoscopic ulcers with diclofenac plus famotidine vs. diclofenac alone in 224 patients, although based on small numbers of events. 70 With NSAID + placebo, the incidence of upper GI ulcers ranged between 18% and 54% (Figure 2). High- dose H 2 RA signicantly reduced the incidence of endo- scopic ulcers, however, described (Table 4). Using the outcome of all upper GI endoscopic ulcers, there was a 46% reduction in incidence across trials from 24% to 11%. For high-dose H 2 RA vs. placebo, the overall NNTp for total upper GI endoscopic ulcers was about 8, with an NNTp of about 10 for gastric ulcers and 17 for duodenal ulcers (Table 4). Comparing PPI with High-dose H 2 RA. These indirect comparisons of results with PPI and high-dose H 2 RA showed a somewhat greater reduction in the incidence in upper GI endoscopic ulcers with PPI than high-dose H 2 RA, with a statistically lower (better) NNTp for PPI than H 2 RA (z = 2.99, P = 0.003). The PPI studies mostly used naproxen as the NSAID, while those with high-dose H 2 RA mostly used ibuprofen (Table 3). We know from observational studies that naproxen pro- duces more GI problems than ibuprofen (Table 1) and that tendency probably describes the higher incidence of endoscopic ulcers with placebo in the PPI compared with the H 2 RA studies. While the starting points were different, the absolute risk of upper GI endoscopic ulcers endoscopic ulcer with treatment was the same (at 11%) with both gastroprotective interventions (Figure 3). Direct comparisons of PPI and high-dose H 2 RAin the same trial are lacking. There are comparative studies, but in slightly different circumstances of healing estab- lished NSAID or aspirin-associated ulcers rather than those designed to determine prophylactic efcacy of gastroprotective agents. One study compared esomep- razole 20 mg or 40 mg with 300 mg (high dose) ranitidine daily; 71 8-week healing rates were about 85% with esomeprazole compared with 76% with ranitidine, with no statistical difference. In other examples, a randomized study compared 20 and 40 mg omeprazole with 150 mg (low dose) raniti- dine in patients using NSAIDs with established ulcers or erosions. 72 Healing rates after 8 weeks were 80% with Table 4. Summary of Analyses of Efcacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) and H 2 RA in Studies Comparing Nonsteroidal Anti-Inammatory Drugs (NSAID) + Gastroprotective Agents (GPA) with NSAID + Placebo, Over 12 weeks or Time Nearest 12 weeks Outcome vs. Placebo Number of Percent Ulcers with Relative Risk (95% CI) NNTp 95% CI) Trials Patients Active Placebo PPI Gastric ulcers 7 2,076 10 25 0.34 (0.27 to 0.42) 6.7 (55 to 8.6) Duodenal ulcers 6 1,729 1 7 0.16 (0.08 to 0.29) 16 (12 to 24) Upper GI ulcers 5 1,216 14 34 0.35 (0.28 to 0.43) 4.7 (3.8 to 6.1) Upper GI ulcers (assumed) 7 2,076 11 32 0.30 (0.25 to 0.36) 4.8 (4.1 to 5.8) High-dose H 2 A Gastric ulcers 5 1,680 10 19 0.52 (0.40 to 0.66) 10 (7.5 to 17) Duodenal ulcers 5 1,680 1 7 0.23 (0.13 to 0.41) 17 (13 to 28) Upper GI ulcers 5 1,680 11 24 0.49 (0.39 to 0.61) 7.7 (5.9 to 11) GI, gastrointestinal; NNTp, number needed to treat to prevent. Note that for PPI, all upper GI ulcers were assumed to be sum of gastric and duodenal ulcers in two studies PPI High-dose H2A 0 10 20 30 40 Percent Upper GI ulcers at study end GPA Placebo Figure 3. Overall incidence of endoscopic ulcers with nonsteroi- dal anti-inammatory drug plus gastroprotective agents or placebo (percent). NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 385 omeprazole compared with 63% with low-dose raniti- dine, with a maintenance phase after healing yielding a six-month ulcer-free rate of 72% for omeprazole and 59% for low-dose ranitidine. A similar comparison of lansoprazole 30 mg with low-dose famotidine 40 mg in patients with established ulcer using low-dose aspirin demonstrated identical healing rates (89%) after 8 weeks. 73 Observational studies that examine bleeding rates with NSAIDs nd a somewhat greater protective effect with PPI than H 2 RA; for example in a Spanish study, Lanas and colleagues 74 reported adjusted relative risk of peptic ulcer bleeding of 0.33 (0.27 to 0.39) with PPI compared to 0.65 (0.50 to 0.85) with H 2 RA, but with no information about the actual drugs, and particularly the dose of H 2 RA. Similar results are reported with low-dose aspirin, but again with no indications of GPA dose. 75 There is consistent evidence across indirect and direct studies that the gastroprotective effects of PPI and high- dose H 2 RA are broadly similar, but that low doses of H 2 RA have lower effectiveness. There is no conclusive evidence of greater PPI efcacy compared with high- dose H 2 RA. Although there are other gastroprotective strategies including the addition of misoprostol to the NSAID regimen or developing a combination medication, the use of this medication is limited by dose-related symp- toms directly related to the mechanism of action of replacing prostaglandins within the GI tract. Thus, when considering which gastroprotective therapy to use, we must consider the information learned about adher- ence to the medications offered. Adherence to Gastroprotective Strategies Prescribers Adherence to Guidance. A systematic review of studies of adherence of prescribing gastropro- tective agents (GPA) with NSAIDs conducted up to the end of 2005 and including 911,000 NSAID users found that GPAs were prescribed in about 26% of patients taking NSAIDs and having at least one gastrointestinal risk factor, like age, previous ulcers, etc. 11 An extension of the search from 2006 to August 2012 identied 21 additional studies (Table 5) with over 1,034,000 addi- tional NSAID users. 7696 As in the earlier systematic review, there was a range of values for the percentage of patients using GPAs with NSAIDs, and this reects differences in denitions of GPA cover. For example, several studies examined not just coprescribing, but the extent of coprescribing, with at least 80% of the NSAID exposure time covered by GPA dened as adequate. 82,86,87,92,95 There was a tendency for smaller studies (fewer than 5,000 subjects) to produce a somewhat better adherence of GPA prescribing than larger studies (Figure 4). Combining the data from these 21 studies with those from the earlier systematic review (Figure 5), it becomes clear that there is a much greater variability between studies when they are smaller than when they are larger, but considerable variability still exists even with large studies. Over time, GPA prescribing rates have increased. For example, in a Dutch study, GPA prescribing with NSAIDs increased from 40% in 2001 to 70% in 2007, 80 and in a study in three European countries, under-use of GPA fell between 2000 and 2008. 93 That increase is evident taking all the studies together; those in the review to the end of 2005 reported a weighted mean GPA prescribing rate of 26%, while the 21 later studies published since 2005 reported 49%. Overall, the rate was 38%. Despite highly variable rates of adherence found between studies, and despite the tendency over time for adherence to prescribing guidance to increase, there is consistent evidence that about half of patients with gastrointestinal risk factors prescribed NSAIDs are not prescribed adequate or any gastroprotection. Patients Adherence to Prescribed GPA. The propor- tion of patients who adhere to their coprescribed GPA is known to fall rapidly within the rst year. 97 A more recent study in Spain suggests short-termadherence with GPA for NSAID use may be as high as 85%. 98 There is clear evidence that lack of adherence is associated with increased gastrointestinal harm. 92 Other Risks with NSAIDs and Pain NSAIDs and coxibs are associated with other potential risks, fracture, 99 and renal failure in older patients given NSAIDs with longer half-lives. 100 The risk of fracture is much higher with opioids than with NSAIDs, with an incidence rate 5 times higher in older adults in a large propensity-matched study; 101 hospital admission for adverse events and all-cause mortality were also consid- erably higher with opioids. Meta-analysis of random- ized trials of NSAIDs and coxibs indicate a 45% increased risk of a vascular event compared with placebo, amounting to a 0.3% increased absolute risk a year against a background risk of about 1% a year. 102 386 MOORE ET AL. Similar risk was evident for all coxibs or NSAIDs, with the exception of naproxen in these randomized trials, for which there was no increased risk. There is increasing evidence that the presence of chronic pain, particularly severe pain 103,104 or pain resulting in inactivity, 105 is associated with increased all- cause mortality. Large, long-term observational studies fail to corroborate increased cardiovascular risk with NSAIDs; indeed, they suggest that long-term treatment with NSAIDs or coxibs is associated with reduced incidence of cardiovascular events and all-cause mor- tality. 106,107 The degree of the reduction is substantial and appears to be true of all cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. NSA- IDs and coxibs tend to have lower rates of signicant harm than opioids in large-matched cohorts. 101 One Table 5. Summary of Individual Studies and Meta-Analyses Published 2006 to 2012 Reporting Doctors Adherence to Prescribing Guidelines for Patients Taking Nonsteroidal Anti-Inammatory Drugs (NSAID), and with at Least One GI Risk Factor Study Details Place Number Adherence (prescribed appropriate GPA) Moore et al. 11 Systematic review of GPA adherence to end 2005. Data from observational studies Worldwide, mainly N America, Europe 1.6 million, of whom 911,000 NSAID users 26% Bell et al. 76 Survey of nursing home long-term residents Finland 1,087 total 22% Bianco et al. 77 Nationwide GP survey Italy 3,943 81% Cot e et al. 78 Review of patients discharged from medical service over 3 months U.S.A. 338 46% Doherty et al. 79 Record review of hospital inpatients Ireland 160 58% at end only 60 to 70% with several risk factors Helsper et al. 80 Retrospective cohort of medical records database The Netherlands 1.5 million, 7.5% using NSAIDs 40% in 2001 70% in 2007 Johnell and Fastbom 81 National prescribed drug register Sweden 41,626 NSAID users 22% Koncz et al. 82 Retrospective analysis of national GP database U.K. 26,371 NSAID users Adequate gastroprotection 20% High risk 20% to 38% Lanas et al. 83 Patients visiting a national health service on 1 day with osteoarthritis Spain 17,105 56% low risk to 92% high risk with NSAID 33% to 76% with coxib Lanas et al. 84 Retrospective medical record study Spain 2,106 90% Ljung et al. 85 Nationwide registry study for persons aged 65 years and older Sweden 1.5 million 257,963 using NSAIDs 40% Lopez-Pintor and Lumbreras 86 Cross-sectional study of community pharmacies Spain 670 64% (but only 20% had appropriate protection) Morini et al. 87 Cross-sectional studies of NSAID users in primary care over 1 week Italy 869 Appropriate protection in 34% Pasina et al. 88 Analysis of prescription health database Italy Over 1 million population of whom 21,553 were regular NSAID users 35 years 17% Thi en and Schwalm 89 Cross-sectional analysis of patients in primary care France 1,002 39% Tsumura et al. 90 NSAID users who had undergone upper GI endoscopy Japan 128 regular users 84% Valkhoff et al. 91 Analysis of integrated primary care database The Netherlands 50,126 39% Valkhoff et al. 93 Casecontrol study using information from 3 primary care databases for coxib treatment The Netherlands, U.K., Italy 14,146 > 80% cover in 49% taking coxib for 1 month Valkhoff et al. 93 Population-based cohort study in 3 European countries U.K., Italy, The Netherlands 617,000 total NSAID users, 314,000 with GI risk factor Under-use of GPA in 66 to 76% in 2008, reducing over time van Soest et al. 94 Nested casecontrol study of new NSAID users with GI risk factors The Netherlands 38,201 15% van Soest et al. 95 Nested casecontrol study of new NSAID users aged 50 years who also used a GPA The Netherlands, U.K., Italy 61,8684 117,307 nsNSAID plus GPA > 80% cover in 53% taking coxib for 1 month Van der Linden et al. 96 Retrospective analysis of prescription database The Netherlands 58,770 20% GPA, Gastroprotective agents. NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 387 possible explanation for the association between chronic severe pain and increased all-cause mortality is lack of mobility, and the removal of the cardioprotective benets of active living, although this is no more than speculative. Other Risks with GPA Rare but serious harm may also be associated with long- term use of gastroprotective agents. A number of systematic reviews have examined risk with GPAs, particularly PPIs. PPIs. Proton pump inhibitors have been associated with higher rates of fracture. A substantial number of studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated a modest increase with PPIs but not other acid-suppressing medicines. 108115 The link between PPI use and frac- tures has been downplayed because there is no proven mechanism. The reported magnitude of the risk eleva- tion associated with the use of PPIs was only weak, and the likelihood of residual confounding despite adjust- ment for known comorbidities and drug use cannot be ruled out. 113,116 A number of other potential risks have been associ- ated with long-term use of PPIs, including cancer, enteric infections (mainly Clostridium difcile-associ- ated diarrhea), pneumonia, hypomagnesaemia, and drug interactions, particularly with clopidogrel. 117,118 All have evidence of some effects, mainly moderate in magnitude, and with the possibility of confounding by indication. These are not reviewed in detail here, but are mentioned for completeness. Concern regarding the safety of PPIs has been highlighted in a number of recent U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) safety updates. H 2 RAs. We could not nd reviews or large studies indicating increased risks associated with long-term H 2 RA use and no increased risk of colorectal ade- noma. 119 Patient and Physician Attitudes to Risk and Benet While the requirement for risk minimization is clear, the purpose for prescribing NSAIDs is to reduce pain, the symptom (probably with decreased function) that brings the patient to the clinic in the rst place. This makes it expedient to examine the risk and benet from the patients perspective. Patients with chronic conditions are willing to accept relatively high levels of risk of harm to obtain effective therapy, despite the signicant barriers to describing benet and risk in terms understood by patients in the clinical setting. 120,121 Table 6 summarizes results from recent studies of patient attitude to risk and benet in a variety of chronic conditions, including menopausal ushing and sweats, 122 Crohns disease, 123 osteoarthri- tis, 124,125 multiple sclerosis, 126 idiopathic thrombocyto- penic purpura, 127 and irritable bowel syndrome. 128 They are characterized by patients regarding maximum acceptable risk of harm for successful treatment of 1 in 300 to 1 in 30 to get successful treatment. The <25% 25-49% 50-74% 75% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of studies Percentage cover with GPA Small Large Figure 4. Degree of adherence to gastroprotective agents pre- scribing with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs according to study size (smaller studies had fewer than 5,000 subjects each). 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of patients using NSAID Percent prescribed GPA Figure 5. Prescribing of gastroprotective agents with nonsteroi- dal anti-inammatory drugs in patients with at least one gastrointestinal risk factor in individual studies. 388 MOORE ET AL. acceptable risk is typically similar to or higher than the actual risk. Physicians see things differently, especially in the treatment of arthritis. A survey in the U.K. found that physicians graded a very substantial reduction in pain (from 75/100 mm to 25/100 mm, that is from severe to mild pain) as less important than an increased risk of heart attack from 0% to 1.5% (roughly 1 in 70 risk). Physicians were willing to accept an increased risk of bleeding of 0.7% (roughly a 1 in 140 risk) for a reduction in pain from 75/100 mm to 25/100 mm, that is, fromsevere to moderate pain. 129 It would appear that benets generally regarded as substantial or moderate in importance 43 are neglected compared with small or moderate increases in absolute risk. DISCUSSION Important issues in clinical practice are to establish that the NSAID or coxib prescribed delivers good pain relief and that these patients, who may need to use NSAIDs or coxibs in the long term, are prescribed gastroprotection and use it. The evidence on both counts gives cause for concern. A 2011 survey of 1,260 osteoarthritis patients across 6 European Union countries showed that only 46% experienced adequate pain relief; 130 those with inadequate pain relief are put at risk for no benet. The proportion of patients who adhere to their coprescribed GPA is known to fall rapidly within the rst year. 97 Clinical guidance on gastroprotection is consistent across many guidelines. When an NSAID is prescribed and there is an increased risk of gastrointestinal harm, some form of gastroprotection should be prescribed. The NICE guidance on osteoarthritis, for instance, suggests coprescription with a PPI in every patient, irrespective of risk and whether the patient is prescribed an NSAID or a coxib. 15 The issues are as follows: 1. To ensure patients have a good level of pain relief. Any single NSAID or coxib will deliver good pain Table 6. Studies Reporting Patients Judgement of Acceptable Risk with Treatment in Chronic Conditions Reference Study Design Acceptable Risk Probable Actual Risk Johnson et al. 122 Internet questionnaire survey of 523 U.S. women regarding risks of cancer or heart disease for various levels of benets for hot ushes, sweats and increased fracture risk Maximum acceptable risk was: Heart attack, 1 in 50 to 1 in 30 Cancer, 1 in 140 to 1 in 70 Heart attack 1 in 250 Cancer 1 in 250 Johnson et al. 123 Survey of 580 U.S. patients with Crohns disease, and attitudes to serious infection, lymphoma, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy related to moderate to mild or severe to remission changes About 50% of patients would accept risk of 1 in 200 a year for change in symptoms from moderate to mild, and 80% would accept 1 in 200 risk for change from severe to remission Risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in persons with autoimmune disorders in below 1 in 1,000 Richardson et al. 124 196 Canadian patients with OA, and attitudes to risk of increased heart attack or GI bleed for 2 or 5 point (out of 10) pain reduction About 70% willing to accept increased risk of both, with about 20% not willing to accept any increased risk Maximum acceptable risks of the order of 1 in 50 Depends on drug, but probably less than 1 in 1,000 Johnson et al. 126 651 U.S. patients with multiple sclerosis presented with choices of treatment benets and associated risks Maximum acceptable risks for liver failure, leukaemia, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy were 1 in 300 to 1 in 100 for various levels of benet Natalizumab has reported incidence of 1 case of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy per 384 MS patients Hauber et al. 127 1,542 patients with chronic idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura and risk of thromboembolism Maximum acceptable risk about 1 in 50 for > 50% chance of treatment success Risk of any venous thromboembolism is about 1 in 50 following splenectomy Johnson et al. 128 589 U.S. women with diarrhoea predominant irritable bowel syndrome and attitudes to risk of impacted bowel, severe colitis, and perforated bowel for different levels of symptom relief Maximum acceptable risk was 1 in 100 to 1 in 30 for good improvement or complete symptom relief Incidence of ischaemic colitis with treatment about 1 in 2,000, and serious gastrointestinal complications about 1 in 1,000 Hauber et al. 125 294 U.K. patients with OA questioned about the benets of different outcomes and risks For improvement in ambulatory pain to mild pain or less, acceptable risk for bleeding ulcer, heart attack, or stroke was around 1 in 100 to 1 in 50 Actual increased risks probably 1 in 1,000 or less for any treatment NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 389 relief to only about 25% of those patients who try it. 2. How best to ensure that gastroprotection is guaranteed for the NSAID or coxib that delivers good pain relief. One argument for the use of coxibs was convincing evidence that they did deliver reduced gastrointestinal harm across a range of different outcomes 11 and, at doses used, had at least equal efcacy. 46 Fixed-dose combi- nation products of esomeprazole plus naproxen, omeprazole plus ketoprofen, and high-dose famotidine plus ibuprofen are available. There- fore, there is a range of options that could deliver good pain relief for patients and provide reliable gastrointestinal protection while they are being taken. The knowledge that pain relief and other benets of successful treatment have a bimodal distribution can simplify the assessment of benet and risk. For those who are nonresponders, without signicant reduction in pain or who have intolerable adverse events that impede any benets because they prevent the tablets being taken, risk should be irrelevant because therapy should stop. Those who are responders will have large benets to set against any potential risk, and while they should be cognisant of the risk, the evidence is that most would choose benet over risk. For an individual patient with chronic musculoskel- etal pain, the key is to nd the NSAIDor coxib that gives both good pain reliefs with tolerable adverse events. If an NSAID works for that individual patient, we know that gastroprotection as concomitant but separate PPI, misoprostol, or high-dose H 2 RA is often neither pre- scribed nor taken. The problem can be overcome for some NSAIDs because single tablet combination thera- pies are available for naproxen (Vimovo
, naproxen plus esomeprazole; AstraZeneca UL Ltd, Luton, UK), ibuprofen (DUEXIS
, ibuprofen plus high-dose famoti-
dine; Horizon Pharma, Deereld, IL, USA), and keto- profen (Axorid
, ketoprofen plus omeprazole; Meda
AB, Solna, Sweden). These combination products are variably available in the U.K. and Europe, and U.S.A. and Canada. If it is a coxib that provides good pain relief, then gastroprotection is built in, but guidance sometimes recommends GPA with coxibs. Finding a strategy that delivers gastroprotection is an important component of improving the balance of benet over risk with NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain. REFERENCES 1. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 19902010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380: 21632196. 2. Moore RA, Straube S, Aldington D. Pain measures and cut-offs no worse than mild pain as a simple, universal outcome. Anaesthesia. 2013 Jan 24;68:400412. 3. Tramer MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJ, McQuay HJ. Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a newmodel applied to chronic NSAID use. Pain. 2000;85:169182. 4. Hawkey CJ. Cyclooxygenase inhibition: between the devil and the deep blue sea. Gut. 2002;50(Suppl 3):III25III30. 5. Moore A, Makinson G, Li C. Patient-level pooled analysis of adjudicated gastrointestinal outcomes in celecoxib clinical trials: meta-analysis of 51,000 patients enrolled in 52 randomized trials. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R6. 6. Hernandez-Daz S, Rodrguez LA. Association between nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs and upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding/perforation: an overview of epidemiologic studies published in the 1990s. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:20932099. 7. Mass o Gonzalez EL, Patrignani P, Tacconelli S, Garca Rodrguez LA. Variability among nonsteroidal antiin- ammatory drugs in risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:15921601. 8. Lewis SC, Langman MJ, Laporte JR, Matthews JN, Rawlins MD, Wiholm BE. Dose-response relationships between individual nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NANSAIDs) and serious upper gastrointestinal bleed- ing: a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;54:320326. 9. Lanas A, Garca-Rodrguez LA, Arroyo MT, et al. Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding associated with selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, traditional non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs, aspirin and combina- tions. Gut. 2006;55:17311738. 10. Garca Rodrguez LA, Barreales Tolosa L. Risk of upper gastrointestinal complications among users of tradi- tional NSAIDs and COXIBs in the general population. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:498506. 11. Moore RA, Derry S, Phillips CJ, McQuay HJ. Non- steroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase- 2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) and gastrointestinal harm: review of clinical trials and clinical practice. BMC Muscul- oskelet Disord. 2006;7:79. 12. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs: balancing gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:73. 13. Straube S, Tramer MR, Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Mortality with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perfo- 390 MOORE ET AL. ration: effects of time and NSAID use. BMC Gastroenterol. 2009;9:41. 14. Rostom A, Dube C, Wells G, et al. Prevention of NSAID-induced gastroduodenal ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(4):CD002296. 15. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Condi- tions. Osteoarthritis: National Clinical Guideline for Care and Management in Adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2008. 16. Laharie D, Droz-Perroteau C, Benichou J, et al. Hospitalizations for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events in the CADEUS cohort of traditional or Coxib NSAID users. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010;69:295302. 17. Miyamoto M, Haruma K, Okamoto T, Higashi Y, Hidaka T, Manabe N. Continuous proton pump inhibitor treatment decreases upper gastrointestinal bleeding and related death in rural area in Japan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;27:372377. 18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:10061012. 19. Moore RA, Eccleston C, Derry S et al. Evidence in chronic pain establishing best practice in the reporting of systematic reviews. Pain. 2010;150:386389. 20. Moore RA, Straube S, Eccleston C, et al. Estimate at your peril: imputation methods for patient withdrawal can bias efcacy outcomes in chronic pain trials using responder analyses. Pain. 2012;153:265268. 21. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufcient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:867873. 22. Ruppen W, Derry S, McQuay H, Moore RA. Inci- dence of epidural hematoma, infection, and neurologic injury in obstetric patients with epidural analgesia/anesthesia. Anes- thesiology. 2006;105:394399. 23. Park CL, Roberts DE, Aldington DJ, Moore RA. Prehospital analgesia: systematic review of evidence. J R Army Med Corps 2010;156(4 Suppl 1):295300. 24. Moore A, McQuay H. Bandoliers Little Book of Making Sense of the Medical Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. 25. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:112. 26. LAbbe KA, Detsky AS, ORourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:224233. 27. Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating condence intervals for relative risk, odds ratios and standardised ratios and rates. In: Gardner MJ, Altman DG, eds. Statistics With Condence Condence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines. London: BMJ; 1995:5063. 28. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310:452454. 29. Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997;315:635640. 30. Moore RA, Straube S, Aldington D. Pain measures and cut-offs - no worse than mild pain as a simple, universal outcome. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:400412. 31. Dougados M. Its good to feel better but its better to feel good. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:12. 32. OBrien EM, Staud RM, Hassinger AD, et al. Patient- centered perspective on treatment outcomes in chronic pain. Pain Med. 2010;11:615. 33. Brown JL, Edwards PS, Atchison JW, Lafayette-Lucey A, Wittmer VT, Robinson ME. Dening patient-centered, multidimensional success criteria for treatment of chronic spine pain. Pain Med. 2008;9:851862. 34. Stutts LA, Robinson ME, McCulloch RC, et al. Patient-centered outcome criteria for successful treatment of facial pain and bromyalgia. J Orofac Pain. 2009;23:47 53. 35. Thorne FM, Morley S. Prospective judgments of acceptable outcomes for pain, interference and activity: patient-determined outcome criteria. Pain. 2009;144:262 269. 36. Farrar JT, Polomano RC, Berlin JA, Strom BL. A comparison of change in the 0-10 numeric rating scale to a pain relief scale and global medication performance scale in a short-term clinical trial of breakthrough pain intensity. Anes- thesiology. 2010;112:14641472. 37. Salaf F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculo- skeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283291. 38. Mease PJ, Spaeth M, Clauw DJ, et al. Estimation of minimum clinically important difference for pain in brom- yalgia. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:821826. 39. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Strom BL. Dening the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain. 2000;88:287294. 40. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, Baker PR, Groh J, Redelmeier DA. Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patients perspective. J Rheumatol. 1993;20:557560. 41. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:3437. 42. Ornetti P, Dougados M, Paternotte S, Logeart I, Gossec L. Validation of a numerical rating scale to assess functional impairment in hip and knee osteoarthritis: compar- ison with the WOMAC function scale. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:740746. 43. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, et al. Inter- preting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9:105121. NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 391 44. Simon LS, Evans C, Katz N, et al. Preliminary development of a responder index for chronic low back pain. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:13861391. 45. Dixon S, Poole CD, Odeyemi I, Retsa P, Chambers C, Currie CJ. Deriving health state utilities for the numerical pain rating scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:96. 46. Moore RA, Moore OA, Derry S, Peloso PM, Gam- maitoni AR, Wang H. Responder analysis for pain relief and numbers needed to treat in a meta-analysis of etoricoxib osteoarthritis trials: bridging a gap between clinical trials and clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:374379. 47. Barthel HR, Peniston JH, Clark MB, Gold MS, Altman RD. Correlation of pain relief with physical function in hand osteoarthritis: randomized controlled trial post hoc analysis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:R7. 48. Moore RA, Smugar SS, Wang H, Peloso PM, Gam- maitoni A. Numbers-needed-to-treat analyses do timing, dropouts, and outcome matter? Pooled analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled chronic low back pain trials. Pain. 2010;151:592597. 49. Peloso PM, Gammaitoni A, Smugar SS, Wang H, Moore RA. Longitudinal numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for achieving various levels of analgesic response and improve- ment with etoricoxib, naproxen, and placebo in ankylosing spondylitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:165. 50. Straube S, Derry S, Moore RA, Paine J, McQuay HJ. Pregabalin in bromyalgia responder analysis from individ- ual patient data. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:150. 51. Moore RA, Straube S, Paine J, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Minimumefcacy criteria for comparisons between treatments using individual patient meta-analysis of acute pain trials: examples of etoricoxib, paracetamol, ibuprofen, and ibupro- fen/paracetamol combinations after third molar extraction. Pain. 2011;152:982989. 52. Christakis NA. Does this work for you? BMJ. 2008;337:a2281. 53. Moore RA, Derry S, Taylor RS, Straube S, Phillips C. The costs and consequences of adequately managed chronic non-cancer pain and chronic neuropathic pain. Pain Practice. 2013; doi:10.1111/papr.12050. [Epub ahead of print]. 54. G ulfe A, Kristensen LE, Saxne T, Jacobsson LT, Petersson IF, Geborek P. Utility-based outcomes made easy: the number needed per quality-adjusted life year gained. An observational cohort study of tumor necrosis factor blockade in inammatory arthritis from Southern Sweden. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:13991406. 55. Hoffman DL, Sadosky A, Dukes EM, Alvir J. How do changes in pain severity levels correspond to changes in health status and function in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy? Pain. 2010;149:194201. 56. Moore RA, Straube S, Paine J, Phillips CJ, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Fibromyalgia: moderate and substantial pain intensity reduction predicts improvement in other outcomes and substantial quality of life gain. Pain. 2010;149:360364. 57. Ikenberg R, Hertel N, Moore RA, et al. Cost-effec- tiveness of tapentadol prolonged release compared with oxycodone controlled release in the UK in patients with severe non-malignant chronic pain who failed 1st line treatment with morphine. J Med Econ. 2012;15:724736. 58. Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:235241. 59. Brown TJ, Hooper L, Elliott RA, et al. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of ve strategies for the prevention of non-steroidal anti-inammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:1183. 60. Bianchi Porro G, Lazzaroni M, Imbesi V, Montrone F, Santagada T. Efcacy of pantoprazole in the prevention of peptic ulcers, induced by non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs: a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, paral- lel-group study. Dig Liver Dis. 2000;32:201208. 61. Cullen D, Bardhan KD, Eisner M, et al. Primary gastroduodenal prophylaxis with omeprazole for non-steroi- dal anti-inammatory drug users. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1998;12:135140. 62. Ekstr om P, Carling L, Wetterhus S, et al. Prevention of peptic ulcer and dyspeptic symptoms with omeprazole in patients receiving continuous non-steroidal anti-inammatory drug therapy. A Nordic multicentre study. Scand J Gastroen- terol. 1996;31:753758. 63. Graham DY, Agrawal NM, Campbell DR et al. Ulcer prevention in long-term users of nonsteroidal anti-inamma- tory drugs: results of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, active- and placebo-controlled study of misoprostol vs lansop- razole. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:169175. 64. Hawkey CJ, Karrasch JA, Szczepa~ nski L, et al. Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinammatory drugs. Omeprazole ver- sus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:727 734. 65. Goldstein JL, Hochberg MC, Fort JG, Zhang Y, Hwang C, Sostek M. Clinical trial: the incidence of NSAID- associated endoscopic gastric ulcers in patients treated with PN 400 (naproxen plus esomeprazole magnesium) vs. enteric- coated naproxen alone. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32: 401413. 66. Hudson N, Taha AS, Russell RI, et al. Famotidine for healing and maintenance in nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drug-associated gastroduodenal ulceration. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:18171822. 67. Taha AS, Hudson N, Hawkey CJ, et al. Famotidine for the prevention of gastric and duodenal ulcers caused by nonsteroidal antiinammatory drugs. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:14351439. 68. ten Wolde S, Dijkmans BA, Janssen M, Hermans J, Lamers CB. High-dose ranitidine for the prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer disease in rheumatoid arthritis patients taking NSAIDs. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1996;10:347351. 392 MOORE ET AL. 69. Laine L, Kivitz AJ, Bello AE, Grahn AY, Schiff MH, Taha AS. Double-blind randomized trials of single-tablet ibuprofen/high-dose famotidine vs. ibuprofen alone for reduc- tion of gastric and duodenal ulcers. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:379386. 70. Lazebnik LB, Drozdov VN, Kim VA. Efciency of famotidine in prophylaxis of NSAIDs-induced gastropathy: result of multicenter research ZASLON-1 (protection of gastric mucosa from non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs [Article in Russian]. Eksp Klin Gastroenterol. 2009;2:39. 71. Goldstein JL, Johanson JF, Hawkey CJ, Suchowers LJ, Brown KA. Clinical trial: healing of NSAID-associated gastric ulcers in patients continuing NSAID therapy a randomized study comparing ranitidine with esomeprazole. Aliment Phar- macol Ther. 2007;26:11011111. 72. Yeomans ND, Tulassay Z, Juhasz L, et al. A compar- ison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:719726. 73. Nema H, Kato M. Comparative study of therapeu- tic effects of PPI and H2RA on ulcers during continuous aspirin therapy. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:5342 5346. 74. Lanas A, Garca-Rodrguez LA, Arroyo MT et al.Effect of antisecretory drugs and nitrates on the risk of ulcer bleeding associated with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, and anticoagulants. Am J Gastro- enterol. 2007;102:507515. 75. Nakamura H, Yokoyama H, Yaguchi T, et al. Inves- tigation into the effect of gastric secretion inhibitor for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal lesions associated with low-dose aspirin [Article in Japanese]. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2011;131:445452. 76. Bell JS, Taipale HT, Soini H, Pitkala KH. Concom- itant use of SSRIs, NSAIDs/aspirin and gastroprotective drugs among residents of long-term care facilities: a medical record review. Clin Drug Investig. 2011;31:337344. 77. Bianco MA, Rotondano G, Buri L, Tessari F, Cipoll- etta L. Gastro-protective strategies in primary care in Italy: the Gas.Pro. survey. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42:359364. 78. Cote GA, Norvell JP, Rice JP, Bulsiewicz WJ, Howden CW. Use of gastroprotection in patients discharged from hospital on nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs. Am J Ther. 2008;15:444449. 79. Doherty GA, Cannon MD, Lynch KM, et al. Co- prescription of gastro-protectants in hospitalized patients: an analysis of what we do and what we think we do. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010;44:e51e56. 80. Helsper CW, Smeets HM, Numans ME, Knol MJ, Hoes AW, de Wit NJ. Trends and determinants of adequate gastroprotection in patients chronically using NSAIDs. Phar- macoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:800806. 81. Johnell K, Fastbom J. Concomitant use of gastropro- tective drugs among elderly NSAID/COX-2 selective inhibitor users: a nationwide register-based study. Clin Drug Investig. 2008;28:687695. 82. Koncz TA, Lister SP, Makinson GT. Gastroprotection in patients prescribed non-selective NSAIDs, and the risk of related hospitalization. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:3405 3412. 83. Lanas A, Garcia-Tell G, Armada B, Oteo-Alvaro A. Prescription patterns and appropriateness of NSAID therapy according to gastrointestinal risk and cardiovascular history in patients with diagnoses of osteoarthritis. BMC Med. 2011;9:38. 84. Lanas A, Munoz M, Caballero Correa M, Martinez Jimenez P, investigadores del estudio GAP. Analysis of differences between indication and prescription of gastropro- tection in patients with risk factors treated with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory agents: the GAP study. (Article in Spanish). Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;33:8091. 85. Ljung R, Lu Y, Lagergren J. High concomitant use of interacting drugs and low use of gastroprotective drugs among NSAIDusers in an unselected elderly population: a nationwide register-based study. Drugs Aging. 2011;28:469476. 86. L opez-Pintor E, Lumbreras B. Use of gastrointestinal prophylaxis in NSAID patients: a cross sectional study in community pharmacies. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:155164. 87. Morini S, Zullo A, Oliveti D, et al. A very high rate of inappropriate use of gastroprotection for nonsteroidal anti- inammatory drug therapy in primary care: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;45:780784. 88. Pasina L, Nobili A, Tettamanti M, et al. Co-prescrip- tion of gastroprotective agents in patients taking non-selective NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors: analysis of prescrip- tions. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;48:735743. 89. Thien G, Schwalm MS. Underutilization of gastro- protective drugs in patients receiving non-steroidal anti- inammatory drugs. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:209214. 90. Tsumura H, Fujita T, Tamura I, et al. Association between adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the prescription of non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs and the incidence of gastric mucosal lesions in Japanese patients. J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:944951. 91. Valkhoff VE, van Soest EM, Sturkenboom MC, Kuipers EJ. Time-trends in gastroprotection with nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31:12181228. 92. Valkhoff VE, van Soest EM, Mazzaglia G, et al. Adherence to gastroprotection during cyclooxygenase 2 inhib- itor treatment and the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract events: A population-based study. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64:27922802. 93. Valkhoff VE, van Soest EM, Masclee GM, et al. Prescription of nonselective NSAIDs, coxibs and gastropro- tective agents in the era of rofecoxib withdrawal a 617 400- patient study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36:790799. 94. van Soest EM, Sturkenboom MC, Dieleman JP, Verhamme KM, Siersema PD, Kuipers EJ. Adherence to gastroprotection and the risk of NSAID-related upper gastro- NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 393 intestinal ulcers and haemorrhage. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:265275. 95. van Soest EM, Valkhoff VE, Mazzaglia G, et al. Suboptimal gastroprotective coverage of NSAID use and the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and ulcers: an observa- tional study using three European databases. Gut. 2011;60:16501659. 96. Van der Linden MW, Gaugris S, Kuipers EJ, Van den Bemt BJ, van Herk-Sukel MP, Herings RM. Gastroprotection among new chronic users of non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs: a study of utilization and adherence in The Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25:195204. 97. Sturkenboom MC, Burke TA, Tangelder MJ, Diel- eman JP, Walton S, Goldstein JL. Adherence to proton pump inhibitors or H2-receptor antagonists during the use of non- steroidal anti-inammatory drugs. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18:11371147. 98. Lanas A, Polo-Tomas M, Roncales P, Gonzalez MA, Zapardiel J. Prescription of and adherence to non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs and gastroprotective agents in at-risk gastrointestinal patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:707 714. 99. Vestergaard P, Hermann P, Jensen JE, Eiken P, Mosekilde L. Effects of paracetamol, non-steroidal anti- inammatory drugs, acetylsalicylic acid, and opioids on bone mineral density and risk of fracture: results of the Danish Osteoporosis Prevention Study (DOPS). Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:12551265. 100. Henry D, Page J, Whyte I, Nanra R, Hall C. Consumption of non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs and the development of functional renal impairment in elderly subjects. Results of a casecontrol study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:8590. 101. Solomon DH, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Lee J, Levin R, Schneeweiss S. The comparative safety of analgesics in older adults with arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:19681976. 102. Kearney PM, Baigent C, Godwin J, Halls H, Ember- son JR, Patrono C. Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2006;332:13021308. 103. Torrance N, Elliott AM, Lee AJ, Smith BH. Severe chronic pain is associated with increased 10 year mortality. A cohort record linkage study. Eur J Pain. 2010;14:380386. 104. Sokka T, Pincus T. Poor physical function, pain and limited exercise: risk factors for premature mortality in the range of smoking or hypertension, identied on a simple patient self-report questionnaire for usual care. BMJ Open. 2011;1:e000070. 105. N uesch E, Dieppe P, Reichenbach S, Williams S, Iff S, J uni P. All cause and disease specic mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2011;342:d1165. 106. Goodson NJ, Brookhart AM, Symmons DP, Silman AJ, Solomon DH. Non-steroidal anti-inammatory drug use does not appear to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with inammatory polyarthritis: results from a primary care based inception cohort of patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:367372. 107. Mangoni AA, Woodman RJ, Gaganis P, Gilbert AL, Knights KM. Use of non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs and risk of incident myocardial infarction and heart failure, and all-cause mortality in the Australian veteran community. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69:689700. 108. Kwok CS, Yeong JK, Loke YK. Meta-analysis: risk of fractures with acid-suppressing medication. Bone. 2011;48:768776. 109. Eom CS, Park SM, Myung SK, Yun JM, Ahn JS. Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:257267. 110. Ngamruengphong S, Leontiadis GI, Radhi S, Dentino A, Nugent K. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:12091218. 111. Pouwels S, Lalmohamed A, Souverein P, et al. Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of hip/femur fracture: a population-based casecontrol study. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:903910. 112. Ye X, Liu H, Wu C, et al. Proton pump inhibitors therapy and risk of hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23:794 800. 113. Yu EW, Bauer SR, Bain PA, Bauer DC. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of fractures: a meta-analysis of 11 interna- tional studies. Am J Med. 2011;124:519526. 114. Khalili H, Huang ES, Jacobson BC, Camargo CA Jr, Feskanich D, Chan AT. Use of proton pump inhibitors and risk of hip fracture in relation to dietary and lifestyle factors: a prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:e372. 115. Mello M, Weideman RA, Little BB, Weideman MW, Cryer B, Brown GR. Proton pump inhibitors increase the incidence of bone fractures in hepatitis C patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2012;57:24162422. 116. Bodmer M, Meier C, Kraenzlin ME, Meier CR. Proton pump inhibitors and fracture risk: true effect or residual confounding? Drug Saf. 2010;33:843852. 117. Chen J, Yuan YC, Leontiadis GI, Howden CW. Recent safety concerns with proton pump inhibitors. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:93114. 118. Heidelbaugh JJ, Kim AH, Chang R, Walker PC. Overutilization of proton-pump inhibitors: what the clini- cian needs to know. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2012;5:219 232. 119. Robertson DJ, Burke CA, Schwender BJ, et al. His- tamine receptor antagonists and incident colorectal adenomas. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:123128. 120. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Paling J. What do we know about communicating risk? A brief review and suggestion for contextualising serious, but rare, risk, and the example of cox-2 selective and non-selective NSAIDs. Arthritis Res Ther. 2008;10:R20. 394 MOORE ET AL. 121. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Communicating data about the benets and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:8796. 122. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Hauber B, Kauf TL. Womens willingness to accept perceived risks for vasomotor symptom relief. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:1028 1040. 123. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manseld C, et al. Crohns disease patients risk-benet preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efcacy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:769779. 124. Richardson CG, Chalmers A, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Klinkhoff A, Carswell A, Kopec JA. Pain relief in osteoarthri- tis: patients willingness to risk medication-induced gastroin- testinal, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular complications. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:15691575. 125. Hauber AB, Arden NK, Mohamed AF, et al. A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21:289297. 126. Johnson FR, Van Houtven G, Ozdemir S, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients benet-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efcacy. J Neurol. 2009;256:554562. 127. Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Grotzinger KM, Ozdemir S. Patients benet-risk preferences for chronic idiopathic throm- bocytopenic purpura therapies. Ann Pharmacother 2010;44:479488. 128. Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Ozdemir S, Lynd L. Quan- tifying womens stated benet-risk trade-off preferences for IBS treatment outcomes. Value Health. 2010;13:418423. 129. Arden NK, Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, et al. How do physicians weigh benets and risks associated with treatments in patients with osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom? J Rheumatol. 2012;39:10561063. 130. Conaghan PG, Rannou F, Phillips CJ, et al. A Survey of Osteoarthritis Real World Therapies (SORT): Assessing the Impact of Inadequate Pain Relief (IPR) on Quality of Life, Work Productivity and Health Resource Utilization in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. 14th World Congress on Pain, Milan, Italy, August 27-31, 2012. Poster No. PF 117. NSAID, GPA, and BenetRisk 395